LET’S GET BIBLICAL – PLEASE! Response to Rabbi Tovia Singer’s Lecture “Sin and Atonement”
by Rev. Randy Oliver
Rabbi Singer’s presentation was interesting, to say the least. His fast clipped, New York accent was a bit nostalgic for me, since I was born in Brooklyn. He strives to keep the interest of his listeners, and in this aspect his presentation was successful.
However, it seems that Rabbi Singer is guilty of the same hermeneutical errors of which he accuses Christians. His ideas with regard to sin and atonement, rather than being biblical, are in fact “sub-biblical.”
The Rabbi dismisses the idea that blood atonement is necessary for the removal of sin. In fact, he considers sacrifice to be the least important means of atonement in the mind of God, as it only atones for unintentional sins. Unlike the Christian who is, according to Singer, “preoccupied” with blood atonement, God prefers repentance and charity to sacrifice for the removal of sin.
In light of Singer’s views on blood atonement, I’ve selected two passages in the book of Ezekiel that concern themselves (at least, in Singer’s presentation) with this subject. What I discovered is that not only are Singer’s statements regarding the “Christian perspective” alternately gross exaggerations or fallacious characterizations, but he is surprisingly inconsistent concerning his own Jewish beliefs.
Rabbi Singer states that Christians believe that Ezekiel 18 addresses the issue of vicarious atonement. He also states that this idea of the “innocent” father dying for the “wicked” son was around long before Christianity: there had been a “murmuring” among the Jews that such an idea was possible. Singer goes on to insist that Ezekiel literally looses his temper in response to this murmuring: “Who is saying such a thing? – ‘The father eats sour grapes … the son’s teeth are set on edge’?”
While researching this paper, I came across the web site of Outreach Judaism.1 There I found a question with regard to Ezekiel 18, and Rabbi Singer’s response. Though the quotes are lengthy, I believe them to be illustrative of the presuppositions behind Singer’s interpretation of Ezekiel 18 and his overall hermeneutic:
The question:
“I am also confused with the use of Ezekiel 18:1-4,19-23 as proof against the ability of one to atone for another's sins. This text was not intended to be extrapolated to this point. It was simply as intended: a correction of those in that day which were propagating the idea that the sin of a father will rest upon his children. Ezekiel was dealing with those who teach that the sins of the father rest upon the children because the fall of Adam and Eve caused suffering on their children. It is clearly this false doctrine Ezekiel was trying to destroy.”2
Singer’s response:
“In the 18th chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet was teaching his people a fundamental biblical principle: a righteous person cannot die vicariously for the sins of the wicked. This notion was identified as thoroughly pagan and was to be avoided by the Jewish people at all costs, and is taught emphatically throughout the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel. In verses 20-23 the prophet declares that repentance alone provides full forgiveness of sin. Never are blood-sacrifices or the veneration of a crucified messiah mentioned throughout Ezekiel's thorough and inspiring discourse on sin and atonement…
“Ezekiel's teaching was not new. The Jewish people were warned throughout the Torah never to offer human sacrifices. When Moses offered to have his name removed from the Torah in exchange for the sin that the Jewish people had committed with the golden calf, the Almighty abruptly refused Moses' offer. Moses, who was righteous with regard to the golden calf, could not suffer vicariously for the sin of the nation. Rather, only the soul that sinned would endure judgment
“With regard to your comment on the sin in the Garden of Eden, the consequences of the fall of Adam and Eve are not to be appended to Ezekiel's 18th chapter. Nowhere in this chapter is the sin in the Garden of Eden ever mentioned. In fact, Ezekiel outlines many of the sins that the wicked one may have committed, and yet not one of them is eating from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. On the contrary, all of the sins outlined are those that were never committed in the Garden of Eden. As mentioned above, this chapter is a prophetic teaching on sin and atonement in general, and a vigorous condemnation of the thoroughly pagan belief in vicarious atonement. …
“This comment surprises me because this is a foundational Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches that the Original Sin has infected all of mankind to the point that man has become incapable of achieving ‘salvation’ through his own initiative. Man is ‘totally depraved’ and therefore his only hope of salvation is through the cross. Paul makes a very big deal about this in his epistles, especially in the Book of Romans. So I do agree with you that this belief in the doctrine of Original Sin is contrary to the teachings of the prophets, although this is not what Ezekiel was specifically addressing in the 18th chapter. However, if we take Ezekiel's teaching to its complete spiritual conclusion, the prophet has condemned the church's doctrine on Original Sin and Total Depravity as well.”3
I find it interesting that Singer, an ethnic Jew, seems ignorant of the place of Ezekiel in the history of his people. The book of Ezekiel contains Ezekiel’s response to a controversy and crisis in the lives of the southern kingdom. Ezekiel himself was one of the exiles taken into Babylon in 597 B.C. – an exile which took place because of the continued unfaithfulness of God’s covenant people. There was a dispute between those who were taken to Babylon and those who remained in the Promised Land. Those who remained in the Land (mostly commoners and Levites) believed that the exile was a sign that only those who were taken were being punished, while those who remained in the Land were God’s “remnant.” The exiles themselves held out hope that they would compose the remnant that God had promised to return to the Land as his people.
It is in the light of judgment, restoration, and reconstruction that the book of Ezekiel is to be understood. There were some who questioned their own culpability in this matter. They had not sinned, so they said – it was their parents, their forefathers had transgressed God’s law. They believed themselves to be suffering for their forefathers’ errors. However, in chapter 18 Ezekiel instructed the Judahites that “God does not unfairly punish the descendants for parents’ sins; the present generation must repent.”4 The chapter clearly teaches that rather than suffering unfairly for sins he has not committed, “every man bears the guilt and punishment over his own sins.”5
Chapter 18 seems to take the form of a complex disputation speech.6 When discussing their lot, the Judahites were quoting the proverb, “The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge.”7 The Harper Bible Commentary states, “The meaning of the proverb is clear. One generation is suffering the consequences of a prior generation’s actions. In the context of Ezekiel’s historical situation, just after the first deportation, the use of the proverb implies that the exiles are being punished for the sins of their ancestors.”8 But “instead of theologizing about Yahweh’s (mis)administration of justice, they need to repent of their rebellious ways and to reorder their lives according to tôrâ. The same tôrâ that determines the principles of di! vine judgment offers the only hope of escape and points the way to the future.”9
The Lord invalidates the “sour grapes” proverb not to destroy Jewish notions of vicarious atonement , but to correct the fatalistic viewpoint of the exile: “Ezekiel was not at this time dealing with the problems of the suffering of the innocent, vicarious suffering or corporate suffering … he had to bring home to them an individual sense of sin. The subject of justification by faith should not be pressed into this chapter; it is not under discussion.”10
Many saw repentance as superfluous, as they did not consider themselves accountable for their situation, but rather blamed their forefathers for the sins that brought them into exile. But Ezekiel said to them, “No – it is of your sins, not the sins of your fathers, for which Yahweh is chastising you and for which he calls upon you to repent.” In light of this pervasive sinfulness, it is strange that Rabbi Singer would state, “The prophet has condemned the church's doctrine on Original Sin and Total Depravity as well.” In contrast, Lamar Eugene Cooper, Sr., writes:
“Ezekiel eloquently made the case that everyone was equally accountable before God for the stewardship of life and the opportunity to avoid God’s anger. Judgment was coming, and the people were accountable directly to God. The unrepentant were responsible for hearing the word of God and turning from sin by repentance.”11
Singer is simply mistaken in the characterization of Ezekiel’s purposes in chapter 18:
“In the 18th chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet was teaching his people a fundamental biblical principle: a righteous person cannot die vicariously for the sins of the wicked. This notion was identified as thoroughly pagan and was to be avoided by the Jewish people at all costs, and is taught emphatically throughout the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel. In verses 20-23 the prophet declares that repentance alone provides full forgiveness of sin. Never are blood-sacrifices or the veneration of a crucified messiah mentioned throughout Ezekiel's thorough and inspiring discourse on sin and atonement.”12
Please note Singer’s inconsistency here: 1) Ezekiel does not mention the concept of “blood sacrifices” here; yet 2) Ezekiel is teaching a “fundamental principle” with regard to the superfluous nature of blood sacrifices. Singer argues that Ezekiel is teaching something about a subject that he does not even mention!
It is in dealing with Ezekiel 40:38-43 that Singer reveals not only that his knowledge of Christian doctrinal positions is somewhat deficient, but also that his own brand of “Judaism” is one somewhat akin to Christian Dispensationalism. What makes this doubly ironic is that Dispensationalists hold to the very interpretation of this passage which Singer emphatically states that “no Christians” holds.
It is instructive to note that, for Singer, the Bible is “a crystal ball of the future.” Singer describes it as akin to Captain Kangaroo’s “magic” television set, where the Captain would observe something that would happen in the future, which would somehow occur (e.g. the television would show the Captain with a lampshade on his head, and the Captain, chuckling at the impossibility of such an event, would go to his closet where a lampshade would promptly fall on his head!).
Singer accedes little, if any, historical or redemptive-historical significance to the passage in question. Ezekiel, in a fashion, looks into God’s crystal ball and observes Israel ensconced in the eschatological kingdom – a future that includes animal sacrifices in its ideal temple! I find it interesting that although Singer posits that blood sacrifice is God’s least-preferred method for atonement, and that belief in such an atonement is “thoroughly pagan,”13 he exults in knowing that there will be sacrifices in this eschatological Temple.
What is baffling, however, is that he states emphatically,
“When you are looking at the Jewish Scripture, and they are telling us ‘I want you to know, at the end of days there are going to be sacrifices again,’ there’s a serious problem, because according to Christians, there shouldn’t be a sacrifice anymore … any of you, walk out of here, go to any fundamentalist Christian you know, and ask them, ‘Tell me, is there going to be a sacrificial system again, they will say, ‘No – no need for it – Jesus died once and for all.’ Now, not only will there be sacrifices, there will also be sin sacrifices. One of the most detailed descriptions of the Messianic age … takes place in the book of Ezekiel chapters 40-48 … it is a description of what the third temple will be like … this great eternal temple … guess what else is going to be there? There’s gonna be sacrifices. You know what kind of sacrifices? Sin sacrifices … Sin offerings at the end of days – why, if Jesus died for our sins? … When you are looking at the Messianic age as d! escribed by the prophet, and they tell us that there’s gonna be sin offerings again, they tell us that there’s gonna be a regular sacrificial system again, clearly, Hebrews just simply doesn’t hold up.”14
What is puzzling is, as “Dispensational” as Singer’s views sound here, he seems to ignore the Dispensational wing of “fundamentalist Christendom” who tend to affirm that sacrifices will take place in a rebuilt, ideal temple in the eschatological kingdom.
Walvoord and Zuck note in their Bible Knowledge Commentary:
“At Christ’s second coming, Israel will again assume her place of prominence in God’s kingdom program (cf. Rom. 11:25-27). The Lord’s Supper will be eliminated, because Christ will have returned. It will be replaced by animal sacrifices, which will be memorials or object lessons of the supreme sacrifice made by the Lamb of God. The slaughtering of these animals will be vivid reminders of the Messiah’s suffering and death.”15
Cooper, in his commentary, states:
“Since the church will be taken out of the world, or raptured, prior to the tribulation (Rev. 4:1), the tribulation will be the era of conversion for Israel (Rev. 7:1ff.), and the millennium will afford them the opportunity to reinstate their covenant to celebrate and commemorate the redemptive work of Jesus the Messiah. The existence of the millennial temple and the reinstatement of the sacrificial system is not only understandable but predictable.”16